tv [untitled] January 3, 2012 4:31pm-5:01pm PST
framework that incidentally does not apply to hospitals. if it did, it would -- i had these numbers a second ago. if they were applicable, that he would have been reduced to 12 million. excuse me, if hospitals were subject to the jobs housing linkage fees which is another way of determining and offsetting the work force housing impact, the fee is calculated by the planning department in coordination with -- it would have been roughly 12 million. it is far less than the package we are currently negotiating now. supervisor kim: be you have a value?
gosh no, that is actually the housing impact of creating new office commercial space in san francisco, an ordinance that has been in effect for a couple decades now and is based upon the square footage calculation. it was difficult for us to arrive at the exact square footage calculation because hospitals are not included, but we would have projected that the medical proxy would be roughly $17.48 a square foot. supervisor kim: i realize the linkage fee doesn't apply to households, but cpmc would have to pay -- i assume the homeowner down payment system is trying to replicate that feed in the sense that we are creating more jobs and those employees
will have an impact on the housing market. the homeownership down payment program? >> i think that it is certainly a characterization of the impact that homeownership is attempting to replicate. i would say in regards to that piece, the overall package addressing that will far exceed $12 million. supervisor kim: you have a valuation that you're proposing? >> we are negotiating how to get to that number. we will have an exact value the next time. i am sure the next time we are at the board, but certainly before it goes the planning. supervisor kim: it depends on the mix of ami. >> it is going to be more based
upon what we believe the projected down payment level of assistance will meet the. supervisor kim: and a quick question about the replacement of the demolished housing units. it is only when they do demolish that they have to pay this fee? >> the have to make a payment prior to issuance of the demolition permit. supervisor kim: not when they are vacated, but at demolition. >> yes. president chiu: in the 2009 housing element that we passed, i know that in the draft eir, was that housing demand taken
into account as you thought about what the city's ask would be? >> supervisor kim mentioned this earlier. the numbers are assuming that those are an accurate projection of the housing demands in the long-range development plan that would create and would be housing demand that would be distributed across the income levels of the employees being brought in. in our situation, what we're really focusing on where the housing demands of low and come and very low income, although the housing demands of the work force category. in terms of that, what we really looked at as we concentrated on the peace and the relationship between the
office space and housing demand, that specific piece is really captured again in the linkage fee. if we went back to the jobs housing linkage fee, determining this obligation, that $12 million, that figure would be quite below the package that we are trying to negotiate now. president chiu: thank you. supervisor mar. supervisor mar: i know is laid, and i appreciate the department staff. it was addressing supporting the existing area plan housing. any new development project would fulfill the goal as a grant of that exception. i am interested in how you come to the conclusion that by
meeting the housing portion of the 1100 units, that is meeting the intent of substantially fulfilling the underlying housing production goals in the city. >> thank you for raising that resolution, i think i was not here. in crafting that, i believe we were really focusing at the time, and for your point and a substantial requirements, i will say this. if you take a look at the obligation in aggregate, 1100 units that we calculated out, and offset what we are addressing it with of the mayor's package with the 900 market rate units. at the end of the day, if you monetize the value of those market rate units, they would come out with and that to gain if they develop the 900 units.
that is why we focused on the inclusion very peace and the affordable housing piece of the 1100 units because that is where the city requires a subsidy in terms of production. that is how we went about prioritizing those. supervisor mar: a question for ken ridge. given the candlestick point development approach to allow stakeholder groups, community based organizations have a key role in having benefits of that huge development, i know that the community organizations, many of them are in the overflow room and in our chambers, many feel strongly that the community benefits agreement is the only way that they can hold them accountable for agreements made.
the development agreement is very important, but it is a way that we can insure that we are meeting health care benefits, transportation and housing needs, especially as the project is so huge. are we going to ensure that? >> thank you, supervisor. in working on the development agreement, we have been focusing as hard as we can on making the development agreement as inclusive as it can be hot. it is as rigorously enforce the will of the camby, who development agreement with cable and include it in a really substantive way, all of the issues of been raised by the community. there are a couple of issues that we can legally include developing agreement. we have not taken a position of
the community benefits agreement beyond the benefit agreement. we are focusing our efforts in making sure the development agreement is a strong and enforceable and includes as many of the issues as we can. president chiu: supervisor wiener. supervisor wiener: you mentioned the breakdown of the cpmc work force that would need housing. what is the -- forgive me if you have said this already, but the cpmc employees, was the breakdown vis a vi low, moderate, very low? believe of the break down? >> i don't have that level of detail of information with me. it is information we can ask for.
supervisor wiener: cpmc has that, but we don't have that? >> i don't have it with me, we may have had it at some point, but we can certainly get it from cpmc. supervisor wiener: and the affordable housing money, but will correlate with the breakdown? if it is for moderate, low, very low income, be you believe that the money will correlate to approximately the same percentages? >> without having looked at the numbers, it is difficult for me to answer that question. i will say that the underlying goal of the housing package was primarily to address the inclusion area obligation -- inclusionary obligation.
that was the metric that we were designing this rental program, he residential piece of it. supervisor wiener: very low and below. >> that is typically what it would be. supervisor wiener: the you have a hunch or a prediction, that there is going to be a mismatch between the allocation of the affordable housing dollars versus the actual income levels of the employees? >> i can't answer that question.
>> is coming from the affordable housing dollars vs the percentage breakdown and the population. we should get at least know that. >> will get that data and we will break that down and certainly work with your office to analyze it. supervisor wiener: correlate it converses where the affordable housing dollars are proposed to go. ideally, it would be a chart showing the income versus -- that's where i'd really be looking for. >> i understand the request. i want to point out the metric by which we were designing this program, it was based upon the inclusion area obligation that it would have been built to under the special use district.
supervisor wiener: different people will draw different judgments. it is either acceptable or not acceptable, it might be good faith policy disputes, but we have had this discussion before. i am of the view that we don't do nearly half for moderate income earners in this city. you know, it is hollowing out the middle class. i understand that some might disagree with that and think it is much more important to focus on the low and very low. i respect that point of view, and we take away whatever judgment we will take away from that. supervisor mirkarimi: mr. ridge, i was replaylining your answer about the community benefits
agreement? >> we have been working very diligently on the development agreement trying to make it both substantive and complete. and on the enforceability, trying to make it as rigorous as possible. we are aware -- we think almost all the issues that are relevant to this project can and are included in the development agreement. there are some that we cannot touch in this city document like a development agreement, specifically labor relations issues that are controlled by federal statutes. we think the document was a pretty complete. we don't have a position, we're just trying to focus on the development agreement. supervisor mirkarimi: i would like to take this opportunity to
abrogate -- advocate for the neighborhoods west of the proposed site, especially if we want to do this via a supervisor of jurisdiction -- supervisoral jurisdiction. i wouldn't be surprised if it shifts these words. i haven't seen anything that speaks to the western addition except in some way a very superficial adjuster about work force in the western addition. considering the high disparity, health care concerns of african- americans compared to other populations, i am a little surprised there hasn't been any mention of that considering that this borders on district 5.
relative to the earlier answer, this is a large and growing population of seniors. why hasn't there been consideration on cathedral hill for this? the answer was, how they weren't a very forceful in their advocacy and is a non-answer to me. i don't know of the inferences of the committees are, this is a failure to launch if those communities do not include the neighborhood to the west of cpmc. that also implies that if there is focus on -- it's my impression that the special use district will encompass gary and be the gary brt. i don't see mention of it being at least some allowance and
assigning of support for the gary brt either. i hope the concerns will be well-noted. and it is a little more robust about the surrounding or a bit of what it is. i greatly appreciate the features that are moving east words in the plan itself. >> if i could quickly respond to a couple of your points, it may have gone over too quickly, but on the request to support construction of the facilities, he requests is both. we would be asking them to help build facilities. certainly, folks traveling from the west towards downtown would
be benefiting. and we did not get into an of detail, of some of the requests, support for clinics, we have a list of neighborhoods we are looking at. it does include the western addition as well as the south of market and the mission. we are actually asking for support for primary-care clinics that would be in the western addition for district 5. supervisor mirkarimi: the impact of this corridor where you have kaiser and across from there, moving eastward were you just have a little bit north, for all intents and purposes, it will become the new pill hill corridor of san francisco where the medical health care industry and its largest concentration with the exception
of the satellite campuses will be centered right there. i don't think you can -- and the radiating in packs of the surrounding neighborhoods in all directions of the campus. again, what i am seeing before us here, what i think has been mentioned, it rings thin. supervisor cohen: thank you, mr. president. i'm not sure which person to oppose this to. saint luke's will have the unilateral authority to rear back or shut down any of the service lines, or will the require board action?
>> we do have legislation, ordnances that the health department -- any health service has to come through the health commission -- that is one way, and again, the health department will be managing the development agreements for component of that. any program, we have a couple from the providers that want to close the service. it'll have to go to the health commission. president chiu: any further questions for city staff? i want to thank the city staff for your presentations. questions may arise as we go to the presentation, but why don't we open it up for public comment? i would like to call up half a
dozen folks. i know there are many individuals that have been waiting outside including folks that are seniors and disabled as well as parents with kids. as is the usual course in the public comment, i would like to give them priority. i also have about 2 inches worth of speaker cards, rest assured that we will stay as long as it takes to hear from everyone. i would like to call up a couple of individuals. [reading names] if we could hear from those individuals, and i will continue to call people through the yellow speaker cards. if we could first year from matt valdez. if you have questions to ask the witnesses, please hit the roster button and i will acknowledge you.
>> i am here on behalf of the uc hastings community and economic development clinic. i am here to talk about the after mentioned profits and patients report. we use data from the states of california as well as the irs. we prepared the report on behalf of several coalitions, and i would like to present the report to be made part of an informational document, and i am also able to make copies of the report. to reiterate some of the points brought up earlylier, this is te largest fee-for-service hospital in san francisco. the reported net patient revenue
of over $1.2 billion. they maintain 644 beds with staff. now in 2010, st. francis reported $174 million in net revenue and is home to 366 ben and staffs 355. we felt providing an absolute numbers would not provide an accurate comparison with other hospitals in said francisco. instead we looked at it as a function in order to make a fair comparison accounting for a relative size. we thought it was accurate and adopted by the industry. i am available for any questions many of the supervisors may have as far as
more details on the report. >> you have a question? >> if you could say a little bit about how you obtained this information. is this readily available? how did that come about? >> all of this is part of the public domain all of this was obtained from the report as well as through the state of california website, financial reporting data they keep for every hospital, and we also use forms that charitable organizations submit to the irs, so all of this is in the public
domain. most of it is on internet. if not, hard copies are obtainable. >> one question was to the extent we are asking to maintain the same level of care they had in the last -- historically. what is that doing going forward relative to other hospitals? >> what we did is we measured charity care as a function of net patient revenue, sir charity care to net patient revenue was 1.38%. other hospitals such as st. francis had a ratio of almost 4.5%, so that is nearly three
i am the executive director of the filipinos senior resource center located in san francisco. the mission is to serve the seniors 60 and over. also world war ii veterans have when and people -- and people under 18. i started the breast cancer program. in this year's funding cycle, we were not able to get funded by one of our founders, so california pacific medical center who worked together. by giving us money to continue my own program.
we started with only five, and now we are serving more than 60 survivors, and i have also reported some for free mammogram and free transportation to go to their center. this made a difference in addressing the needs of the clients, especially south of market and with the intention to give more support within the program as the years come, assuring a long-term partnership. on behalf of this growth, some of my clients are breast cancer survivors, but they are also seen years. i would like to ask the board of supervisors -- they are also seen years.
-- seniors. i would like to ask the board of supervisors to approve this. >> thank you very much. why don't we hear from the next speaker? >> good evening. when i wrote my comment, it was good afternoon, and i hope it does not go into good morning. i am here to talk about some of the concerns the community has, but first i want to thank the supervisors for making sure this is happening and there is more public accountability on what is happening and also to let folks know that many of the folks who were in the overflow room were forced to leave early, so there are 75 folks who already had to leave before they could testify. today you are going